3 ms·
What I don't see mentioned is that IBM would not have to back port anything from the 5.15 tree if they just used an LTS kernel in the first place. But instead t
by CameronNemo 4y ago
What I don't see mentioned is that IBM would not have to back port anything from the 5.15 tree if they just used an LTS kernel in the first place. But instead they like to differentiate(?) their product by using non-LTS kernels and handling all the back porting themselves, rather than collaborating with distros like Debian and Ubuntu which use the LTS kernels.
- warner25 4y agoI've wondered about this too. Like, what's the advantage of it? It looks like they've gone back and forth on this. RHEL 7 and 6 used LTS kernels. Before that, RHEL 5 did its own thing instead of using the LTS. Of course, RHEL also supports these kernels for much longer than the original maintainers. RHEL 6 (released in 2010) still has another year of Extended Life-cycle Support into 2024, even though end-of-life for the 2.6.32 LTS kernel was in 2016. Looking at everything now, I see that Ubuntu 18.04 and 14.04 also chose non-LTS kernels. Interesting.
- kasabali 4y agoReasoning I've heard for this is since they backport complete subsystems and features from mainline kernel over the years, it turns into a frankenstein and it wouldn't resemble the origin version. So it doesn't matter if they'd used LTS version or a non-LTS one.
- ladyanita22 4y agoUbuntu LTS doesn't always use an LTS kernel. 22.04.02 is in 5.19 I believe.